IMPACT OF POOR HOUSING CONDITIONS ON THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF

CAPE COAST POLYTECHNIC STUDENTS

BY

TEDDY ATO ADAMS

BUILDING TECHNOLOGY (HND)

i | P a g e

ABSTRACT

Housing being one of the basic human needs is an aspect of development economics

and therefore of topical interest to all sectors of all societies, hence it is basically true

that academic performance must necessarily be influenced by the quality and quantity

of the residential accommodation of students. The emergence and growth of

commercial Off-campus Students’ Housing in Cape Coast Polytechnic environs are

significant phenomena stimulated by student population explosion and prevailing

inadequacy of on-campus students’ hostels. Thus this paper present a result of case

study of the Impact of Poor Housing Conditions on the Academic Performance of

Cape Coast Polytechnic Students through a simple random sampling of off-campus

hostels using structured questionnaires and personal observations. The result reflected

different perceptions of performance and residential satisfaction based on the levels

of facilities provided, but on the majority, the performance of the hostels was below

expected average and not satisfactory. It recommended the institution Estate Managers

and Accommodation Committee ensure operators of all students’ housing to carry out

better services and enforce occupancy and maintenance standards for such buildings

to avoid low standards and unsanitary conditions and also the institution should to

large extent provide on-campus accommodation for more students as much as

possible.

ii | P a g e

iii | P a g e

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................... i

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................2

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the study ...........................................................................................................3

1.4 Research Questions ................................................................................................................................3

1.5 Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................................3

1.6 Scope and Area of the Study .................................................................................................................3

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................................................................4

2.1 Residential Housing ...............................................................................................................................4

2.2 Hostels in Schools (On-Campus Accommodation) – The Rationale..................................................4

2.3 Off-Campus Accommodation ...............................................................................................................6

2.3.1 What do we mean by poor housing? .............................................................................................. 6

2.3.2 Why good housing? ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.3 Basic Principles of Healthy Housing .............................................................................................. 7

2.4 Indoor Environmental Quality. ............................................................................................................9

2.4.1 Lighting ............................................................................................................................................ 9

2.5 Indoor Air Quality Standard. ............................................................................................................ 10

2.5.1 Ventilation ...................................................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Previous Studies Conducted ............................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Research Instrument .......................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Population ............................................................................................................................................ 12

3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique ...................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Data Analysis Method ......................................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 13

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Finds from field survey ....................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Gallery of some of the visual findings ............................................................................................... 23

iv | P a g e

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 28

5.1 Conclusion. .......................................................................................................................................... 28

5.2 Recommendations. .............................................................................................................................. 28

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 34

1 | P a g e

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Humans, since the dawn of time, have designed places of abode that have afforded them protection

from the natural elements. Most of these efforts have attempted to create internal environments that

are conducive for living and the optimal performance of daily activities. In order to develop these

internal environments, man has developed and utilized a range of sophisticated tools and scientific

methods to gain an understanding of his surrounding climatic conditions. With this knowledge, he

has endeavoured to design building materials that are capable of assisting him to create an appropriate

climate in indoor space that will alleviate the effects of the external environment on personal comfort

(Wafi and Ismail, 2008).

One of the significant objectives of designing buildings to ensure the internal comfort to occupants

is because most people generally spend 85 – 90% of their time indoors and thus providing a

comfortable and healthy environment is imperative (Wafi and Ismail, 2008).

In relation to students accommodation, Blimling, 1999; Cross et al., 2009, argued that the issue of

the affordability of residence halls aside, the profound impacts and benefits of residence halls on

students must be considered. Because of the significance of these impacts, scholars have examined

the influence of residence halls on students from various perspectives (Blimling, 1999; Cross et al.,

2009). Some studies even have suggested that residence halls may influence students’ growth,

behavior in addition to academic performance (Araujo & Murray, 2010; Lanasa et al, 2007).

Indeed, the crucial influence of residence halls might explain the numerous studies on college and

university students’ lives, both on-campus and off-campus, over the last decades (Foubert et al.,

1998; Rinn, 2004; Amole, 2005; Bekurs, 2007; Paine, 2007; Thomsen, 2007, 2008; Black, 2008;

Cross et al. , 2009; Najib et al., 2011).

While the affordability of student housing is crucial for some students, for other students, comfort

and home-like attributes are their main concerns. A recent study suggested that current students have

significantly higher expectations for housing than their parents did when they were students, and

students are willing to pay for certain amenities (Roche et al., 2010). Therefore, a distinctive feature

of contemporary tertiaries is the diversity of students and their needs and requirements. Thus,

tertiaries must provide students with housing that not only is affordable but also fulfills their

requirements. Then the question arises, “What are the attributes of such a residence hall?” There is

2 | P a g e

no single answer to this question; however, our basic knowledge of student housing preferences is

also very limited. Although a number of studies have examined student housing (Holahan and

Wilcox, 1978; Han, 2004; Charbonneau et al. ,2006; Stern et al, 2007; Brandon et al, 2008;

Hassanain, 2008; Cross et al. ,2009; Araujo & Murray, 2010) there is a lack of research on students’

housing preferences, and methods and research instruments in this area remain underdeveloped.

Bad housing covers a wide range of issues, including homelessness, overcrowding, insecurity,

housing that is in poor physical condition, and living in deprived neighbourhoods (Harker, 2006).

The Government of United Kingdom describes a decent home as one that is wind and weather tight,

warm, and has modern facilities, while unfit or poor condition houses are where housing is in need

of substantial repairs; is structurally unsafe; is damp, cold, or infested; or is lacking in modern

facilities (Harker, 2006).

1.2 Problem Statement

There is strong evidence that poor housing conditions result in educational underachievement, with

students in better quality homes gaining greater grade points (Friedman, 2010).

Housing being one of the basic human is an aspect of development economics and therefore of topical

interest to all sectors of all societies. Although it is regarded as an aspect of students personnel

management in education and thus not directly in the primary assignments of educational

administrators or tutors with respect to instruction, it is basically true that academic performance

must necessarily be influenced by the quality and quantity of the residential accommodation (an

aspect of the learning environment) of students (Ubong, 2007).

Nicol and Humphreys (2007) noted that a proper and precise delineation of the interior climate is

essential in determining the efficacy of a building because it will not only ensure the comfort of its

occupants but will also impact upon energy consumption and its sustainability.

Unfortunately, Cape Coast Polytechnic has over the years, not sort to provide enough hostels which

provide the adequate internal environment conditions that support academic performance of students

in the polytechnic, leaving students to rent and live all kinds of houses.

3 | P a g e

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the study

The aim of the study is to ascertain whether poor housing condition has an impact on the academic

performance of tertiary students.

The following objectives will be used to achieve the aim of the study:

(i) To ascertain the nature or state of off-campus residences’ internal and external environments.

(ii) To find out how comfortable off-campus students are in their hostels.

(iii) To find out the extent of the social climate of off-campus students for achieving standard in

tertiary education.

1.4 Research Questions

1. Does the current off-campus accommodation provides adequate internal and external environments

for achieving standard in tertiary education?

2. To what extent does this internal and external environment affect performance of the students?

3. What is the social climate of off-campus students for achieving standard in tertiary education?

1.5 Significance of the Study

The result of the study will prove whether or not poor hostel and housing can have impact on the

performance of tertiary students, and as such the need for the Polytechnic to provide adequate on

campus accommodation.

1.6 Scope and Area of the Study

Cape Coast Polytechnic was established in 1943 as a second cycle institution. In 6891, it operated

under the administration of Ghana Education Service to offer intermediate courses leading to the

award of non-tertiary certificates. In 6881, the Polytechnic was upgraded to tertiary level by PNDCL

116 to run programmes for the award of the Higher National Diplomas. The new Polytechnic Act of

1002, Act 745 has given the Polytechnic the mandate to run degree programs.

It currently has only one hostel facility with accommodate a little more than 20% of the total

population of the school, with the rest of the students stay outside campus.

Cape Coast Polytechnic is situated about 5km from the Pedu Traffic Lights off the main road linking

Cape Coast and Twifu Praso in the Central Region of Ghana.

4 | P a g e

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Residential Housing

Handler (2001), observes, “Every society is faced with the problem of producing human habitation

in sufficient quantity, and obtaining the kind of quality desired, at prices that individuals and families

can afford”. Based apparently on this definition that can be described as a working definition of the

ideal residential housing, Handler (2001) declares, “The problem of housing exists in countries

throughout the world”. In the United States of America (USA), one modern approach that the

governments have been emphasizing according to Handler is joint financing of large housing

programmes by the governments and large private investors. In Russia, Buckley and Gurenko (1997),

state that although as much as 20 million apartments were built in 80 years of the post-Stalin era, the

housing condition in Russia is still poor. In Moscow, an average floor space per person per square

metre, an index of overcrowding used by the World Bank, was 17.3 in 1993. This is a far cry from

the 34.0 in Cologne, Germany, and 41.1 in Toronto, Canada, although by far ahead of Lagos, Nigeria

at 5.5 square metres and the level of 3.5 square metres in Bombay, India (The World Bank, 1999).

Generally speaking, housing is a problem in most countries of the world as earlier noted. The problem

arises from the phenomenal increase in populations in many countries particularly in the developing

ones, vis-à-vis availability of resources, rising cost of building and competition with existing and

emerging needs in areas such as health, education, the environment, the economy and security among

others.

2.2 Hostels in Schools (On-Campus Accommodation) – The Rationale

Ubong (2007) argued that those who have lived in hostels provided by schools will attest to the

usefulness of the facility for students. Some of the benefits of hostel accommodation include but are

not limited to the following:

1. Facilitating Reading/Learning – at any level of education (primary, secondary, university including

postgraduate work), staying in the hall of residence or hostel does enhance the desire to read. There

are fewer distractions, that can be controlled (as in forced ‘prep’ classes in secondary schools), and

the activities of studious colleagues can force less serious ones to read. It is also easier to relate

colleagues who are close by or teachers where a student has a difficulty on a subject matter. Akpan

has showed quantitatively that a more optimal policy option in funding education is increased student

5 | P a g e

income support (as in bursary payments) going along with improved facilities if academic

performance is to be enhanced.

According to him, the time that students are willing to put into studies depends on the level of income

support, expected income gains upon employment (physic income), as well as on the level of

development of the study environment, which includes the library, laboratory, classrooms, hostel

facilities, recreational and health facilities among other things.

2. Co-curricular Activities – students in hostels have a greater opportunity of participating in sports,

games, club, and social activities that are expected to make them more rounded individuals and

citizens than those living off-campus who wouldn’t desire to often walk long distances back to

campus for such programs, or who may find themselves forced into domestic activities once they are

at home.

3. Security – Students are indeed more secure on campus than off-campus in spite of the menace of

some cult activities in some tertiary schools. This is because institutions maintain security personnel

on campus and do monitor the activities of students.

Some private Universities are known to lock their gates early and to insist on students obtaining exit

permits before they travel home.

4. Moral Training – persons from tertiary schools are graduated based on satisfactory performance

‘in character and in learning’. Moral training includes individual behaviour in group situations as in

hostels. All institutions have Codes of Conduct that guide and regulate student behaviour in hostels.

5. National Integration –In Nigeria for instance, it is one of the desires of the Federal Government to

use education as a means of attaining national integration. This is stated in their National Policy on

Education (FRN, 1998).

6. Private Relationships – private relations in hostel rooms could blossom into live time positive

relationships that would be beneficial to both parties.

6 | P a g e

2.3 Off-Campus Accommodation

2.3.1 What do we mean by poor housing?

The National Housing Federation (NHF) (1999) looked at housing and mental health in United

Kingdom. They defined poor housing as dwellings that were cold and damp, overcrowded, or badly

designed and built.

Whilst this provides a simple and useable definition it does not provide the whole picture. The

American Public Health Association as far back as 1939 (Ormandy and Burridge 1988) suggested

housing should provide all of the above and be viewed as a place of sanctuary. This was reiterated in

1989 when a series of fundamental principles governing the relationship between the housing

environment and the health of the residents were set out by the World Health Organisation. These

were divided between those directly related to the housing conditions, and those that went on to

highlight the connection to the environmental context of the housing. They provided

recommendations that housing should be situated in a setting which has adequate industrial,

commercial, social, religious, educational, recreational, welfare and health facilities (WHO 1989).

The latter issues mirror the view that an individual’s immediate environment impact directly on

health status much more fundamentally than a purely biomedical model would advocate.

Poor housing can therefore be described in terms of an individual premise, in relation to the physical

conditions, and at a community level in terms of lack of community facilities and social support

networks (Page, 2002).

Residents at both an individual and community level who are unable to fully utilise or access fully

the economic and social resources available will experience stress and anxiety since they will not

have the abilities or facilities to alter their circumstances. Likewise a person, who lives in poor

housing, especially if they are forced to share facilities, such as kitchens and bathrooms, with non-

family members, will have little privacy and little opportunity to seek true refuge and sanctuary. Poor

housing, as an immediate environmental stressor, therefore, plays a central role in the psychological

well-being of residents both at an individual and community level (Page, 2002).

2.3.2 Why good housing?

Decent housing should be seen as a place for growth and a foundation for the fulfilment of life

objectives, and one that provides for good physical and mental health and personal well-being

7 | P a g e

(Ambrose 1997). A dwelling is more than a physical structure, bringing with it elements of security,

community and wellbeing (Smith 1991).

This inclusive view of housing has not been recognised in the housing standards that have been used

in the UK. To date in UK for instance, they have failed to recognise the full impact of poor housing

on health and have been generally linked to the state of the building rather than the impact on the

person occupying. Attempts were made in the 1990s to make the Fitness standard (Section 604

Housing Act 1985 as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 of UK) to be more

related to health impact of the dwelling. There were, however considerable limitations of this

standard notably that you could not look at the impact on individual occupants, thus a house could

be considered fit for human habitation, but be unsuitable for the existing occupant. In addition the

psycho-social elements such as the impact of noise, social isolation, privacy and mental health were

not covered within the current legislation or standards (Page, 2002).

The lack of emphasis on psychological ill-health is surprising since one can see that if your premises

suffers from severe dampness, mould growth, is cold and in poor repair that your feeling of well-

being will be compromised. A home should act as a place of sanctuary from the external stressors of

life and should not add to the attendant stresses one faces. It is clear that if you are forced to reside

in poor quality accommodation or in poor socio-environmental communities that this will present a

major barrier to well-being (Page, 2002).

2.3.3 Basic Principles of Healthy Housing

According to Ehlers and Steel, in 1938, a Committee on the Hygiene of Housing, appointed by

(American Public Health Association) APHA, created the Basic Principles of Healthful Housing,

which provided guidance regarding the fundamental needs of humans as they relate to housing. These

fundamental needs include physiologic and psychological needs, protection against disease,

protection against injury, protection against fire and electrical shock, and protection against toxic and

explosive gases.

Fundamental Physiologic Needs

Housing should provide for the following physiologic needs:

1. protection from the elements,

2. a thermal environment that will avoid undue heat loss,

3. a thermal environment that will permit adequate heat loss from the body,

8 | P a g e

4. an atmosphere of reasonable chemical purity,

5. adequate daylight illumination and avoidance of undue daylight glare,

6. direct sunlight,

7. adequate artificial illumination and avoidance of glare,

8. protection from excessive noise, and

9. adequate space for exercise and for children to play.

The first three physiologic needs reflect the requirement for adequate protection from the elements.

The lack of adequate heating and cooling systems in homes can contribute to respiratory illnesses or

even lead to death from extreme temperatures according to the America’s National Weather Service

(Ehlers et al, 1938).

Fundamental Psychological Needs

Seven fundamental psychological needs for healthy housing include the following:

1. adequate privacy for the individual,

2. opportunities for normal family life,

3. opportunities for normal community life,

4. facilities that make possible the performance of household tasks without undue physical and

mental fatigue,

5. facilities for maintenance of cleanliness of the dwelling and of the person,

6. possibilities for aesthetic satisfaction in the home and its surroundings, and

7. concordance with prevailing social standards of the local community.

Privacy is a necessity to most people, to some degree and during some periods. The increase in house

size, in many instances, can increase the availability of privacy (Ehlers et al, 1938).

Protection against Disease

Eight ways to protect against contaminants include the following:

1. provide a safe and sanitary water supply;

2. protect the water supply system against pollution;

3. provide toilet facilities that minimize the danger of transmitting disease;

4. protect against sewage contamination of the interior surfaces of the dwelling;

5. avoid unsanitary conditions near the dwelling;

6. exclude vermin from the dwelling, which may play a part in transmitting disease;

9 | P a g e

7. provide facilities for keeping milk and food fresh; and

8. allow sufficient space in sleeping rooms to minimize the danger of contact infection.

(Ehlers et al, 1938).

2.4 Indoor Environmental Quality.

The indoor environmental quality impacts not only health and comfort, but also the occupants,

productivity, as it strongly affects working and learning competency, with effect on production and

social costs (Croome-Clements, 2001). In particular, student quarters are a type of buildings in which

a high level of environmental quality may yield improved levels of individual concentration, learning,

and performances. A lot of studies, in the last years, have been concentrated on finding relationship

between the indoor environment and occupants’ performance and productivity in quarters building

and working environments. Some of them are concentrated on the analysis of the of the various

impact of the single aspects of the indoor air quality, such as acoustical, thermal, indoor air and visual

quality on the overall quality estimation. Thermal comfort is a significant factor for the indoor air

quality and it’s also one of the main sources of energy consumption in quarters.

According to Corgnati et. al. (2008), the environmental parameters impacting thermal comfort were

measured while, at the same time, the subjective judgements of the people about the thermal

environment were expressed. Significant tendency and correlation were found out.

2.4.1 Lighting

Poor indoor lighting can have many harmful effects on health and well-being. A poorly lit working

environment in the hostel can lead to eyesight problems. Poor lighting within the home or hostel can

also make people feel more depressed. These problems can be remedied by adding windows to the

house to increase the amount of natural light, which is much stronger than light from candles or

lamps. In communities where it is important that privacy within the home is maintained, windows

can be located where it is difficult for people to see into the house, or constructed with a mesh or

lattice work which allows light to enter while guarding privacy. Increasing natural light is also

important for home cleanliness: if a house is dark, it is more difficult to see dust and dirt and thus

more difficult to clean properly (WHO’s Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and

Drinking-water (GLAAS 2012).

10 | P a g e

2.5 Indoor Air Quality Standard.

Indoor air quality is the nature of air that affects the health and well-being of occupants indoor. Indoor

air quality is usually due to inadequate ventilation. Indoor air quality will effect in terms of comfort,

acute health and chronic health. Effects of indoor air quality contain six categories, respiratory cancer,

pulmonary disease, infectious diseases, immunological disorder, irritations, and odour. Indoor air

quality will also lower productivity and morale of occupants due to some of the symptoms which are,

eye, nose or throat irritation, headaches, fatigue and dizziness, difficulty in concentration, nausea,

nose bleeds, nasal congestion, rashes, dry skin or lips, and difficulty in breathing. Indoor air quality

has consolidated the many different standards, guidelines, reports and study recommendations. Table

1 below shows the recommended indoor air quality from various organizations.

Table 1. Indoor air quality standard.

Parameter Air Quality Standard Organization Health Hazards

Temperature 22°C - 24°C ASHRAE discomfort, difficulty in

concentration, fatigue, sleepiness 22.5°C - 25.5°C SIAQG

Relative Humidity

40% - 60% ASHRAE discomfort, stuffy, headache, dry

throat, skin discomfort, eye

discomfort (contact lens wearer) 70% SIAQG

Air Movement 0.25m/s WHO

SIAQG

Physical discomfort, stuffy,

headache

Source: adapted from www.cmteknologi.com (20/01/2013)

2.5.1 Ventilation

Adequate indoor ventilation is particularly important, since absence of this can lead to respiratory

problems, such as bronchitis and asthma, and make tuberculosis transmission easier. Where cooking

is done indoors, it is essential that smoke and fumes be removed from the house quickly and

efficiently. Ventilation may be improved by constructing houses with a sufficient number of

windows, particularly in cooking areas. Alternatively, houses can be constructed using bricks with

holes in them (“air-bricks”), which allow fresh air to circulate within the house (WHO’s Global

Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-water (GLAAS 2012).

11 | P a g e

2.6 Previous Studies Conducted

In reference to a study conducted in Nigeria on the topic: Examining the Physio, Psycho and Socio-

Economic Implications of Non- Residential Policy on Imo State University Students (IMSU), the

following conclusion and recommendation were made;

Living in private unsecured off-campus accommodation is associated with lots of challenges, which

are unhealthy for academic excellence among IMSU students. The study therefore admits that all

these distractions and threats to lives and property of the students have psychological, physiological

and economic implications which in the students bid to overcome them, have adversely affected their

optimal academic performances.

For the academic performance of the students of IMSU to improve, the state of the students’

accommodation should be treated as an issue of great priority.

The university premises have enough space to develop hostels that can adequately house her students.

The institution should arrange with private hostel providers to provide conducive accommodation.

Efforts should be made to complete the on-campus hostel project. This will go a long way in

accommodating a good number of the students. In an effort to help these students, the Imo State

Government should provide hostels within the campus. Sufficient toilet facilities for students and

visitors should be developed at strategic locations (classrooms, halls, Libraries, etc.) within the

campus to save students and visitors the mental torture of urinating in the open, and maintenance

arrangement made to sustain them. There is a cogent need to reinforce neighbourhoods’ security

where these hostels exist. The surveillance should not be limited to only one hostel at a time hence

the security personnel within the neighbourhood, need to be re-trained on coordinated neighbourhood

security, and equipped with better facilities to function efficiently.

12 | P a g e

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Chapter three takes a look into the research instrument, the population, and sampling and sample.

Technique for data collection and the method for data analysis will also be considered.

3.1 Research Instrument

Questionnaire will be the major instrument that will be used to collect the data. The use of the

questionnaire (set of questions presented to a respondent) is to get a standard form of answers or

response. It will be of both closed and open ended questions. It will be coupled with observation of

the hostels by the researcher.

3.2 Population

The researcher will base his population in randomly selected off-campus hostels around the

neighbourhood of Cape Coast Polytechnic. A preliminary survey by the researcher placed the off-

campus hostel in a total number of about three hundred (300) hostels. A few purpose built hostels of

about 20 were included to serve as measuring gauge.

3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique

Simple random sample where every member of the population has a known and equal chance of

being selected, is the much appropriate sample technique to employ for such study and target

population as indicated by Stoker (1985).

3.4 Data Analysis Method

Appropriate frequencies and percentages will be used to analyse the data. Microsoft Excel will be

used for all the analysis; the software will be used to calculate the percentages from the frequencies

obtained from the field study.

13 | P a g e

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This Chapter consists of the data analysis and the interpretation of all the findings of the research.

A total of 210 questionnaires were issued out to the target population, thus off-campus residents.

Out of the 210 questionnaires 190 was received and completely filled.

4.2 Finds from field survey

From user responses, it was clear that purpose- built off-campus housing is better planned and hence

more comfortable resulting in higher residential satisfaction than the adapted or poorly built ones. If

attention is paid to services, such adapted ones could, however, be made more satisfactory for the

residents.

From the findings, the off-campus hostels evaluated performed below average as poor quality ratings

of the aspects used in the evaluation outweighed the good quality ratings. Also Findings showed that,

lack of good road facilities, adequate ventilation, and sanitary condition together with delay in

responses to maintenance demands, sheared facilities are major issues highlighted by the students as

constrains of their hostels. These issues fall into three categories namely: design, maintenance and

management matters and are duly represented the following tables.

Table 1: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Residents

Socio-Economic Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)

Sex Male 100 52.63

Female 90 47.37

Total 190 100

Age 15-20 28 34.34

21-25 44 54.32098765

26-30 7 8.641975309

Total 79 97.5308642

100 3 3.703703704

14 | P a g e

Level of Study

200 31 38.27160494

300 27 33.33333333

Total 81 100

Marital status

Single 78 96.2962963

Married 3 3.703703704

Total 81 100

Source: Authors Field Work (2013).

The above table shows the distribution table of the socio-economic characteristics of hostels

residents indicating that more than half of the respondents about 52.63% are male students and about

43.37% are female students. The table also shows that 54% of the respondents are within age 21-25,

while those within 15-20 years are 35% and of those 26-30 years, are 9% with 3% non-response. The

table also shows that, 19% of the respondents are in 100 Level, while 43% of them are in 200 level

and 38% are in 300 level. The frequency table above reveals that 96% of the respondents are singles,

while only 4% are married.

Table 2: Facilities Provided for the Residents

Facilities Provided Status Frequency Percentage (%)

Where do you reside? Private

Rented hostel

j j ii

Conditions of facility:

Room fixtures and furniture Excellent

Good

Average

Fair

15 | P a g e

Poor

[

Toilet and Bath Rating Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Do You Share Your Toilet Yes

No

The rooms:

Artificial Lightning Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Ventilation Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Availability of:

Water Excellent

Good

Fair

16 | P a g e

Poor

Electricity Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Total

Rating levels:

Drainage Excellent 13 16.04938272

Good 50 61.72839506

Fair 14 17.28395062

Poor 4 4.938271605

Total 81 100

Waste Disposal

Regular 33 40.74074074

Very Regular 33 40.74074074

Fairly Regular 13 16.04938272

Irregular 2 2.469135802

Total 81 100

Parking Facilities

Excellent 19 23.45679012

Good 32 39.50617284

Fair 25 30.86419753

17 | P a g e

Poor 5 6.172839506

Total 81 100

Road Facilities Excellent 8 9.87654321

Good 25 30.86419753

Fair 32 39.50617284

Poor 16 19.75308642

Total 81 100

Comfortability Excellent 17 20.98765432

Good 49 60.49382716

Fair 14 17.28395062

Poor 1 1.234567901

Ease of Accessibility Accessible 34 41.97530864

Very

Accessible

43 53.08641975

Poorly

Accessible

4 4.938271605

Total 81 100

Security Excellent 10 12.34567901

Good 49 60.49382716

Fair 21 25.92592593

Poor 1 1.234567901

Total 81 100

18 | P a g e

Source: Authors’ Field Work (2013).

According to the frequency table above, it shows that 95% of the respondents have lived in a private

hostel while 5% don’t.

Based on the room fixtures and furniture as shown in the table below, 10% of the respondents claimed

that they are excellent, while 21% claimed they are good, 30% claimed they are average and 49%

claimed they are fair. From the table larger percentage of respondents 36%, rated the bathrooms of

their respective hostels poor, 28% rated them fair, one-quarter rated them good while about 11%

rated them excellent. Close to three- quarter (95%) of the respondents claimed they share toilets,

while the remaining claimed they do not share toilets. It can be seen that more than halve of the

respondents about 63% responded that the level of artificial lightning in their room is good, 12%

indicated it is excellent, 14% indicated it is fair while 4% indicated it is poor. Majority of the

respondents 43% responded that the level of ventilation in their room is good, 37% indicated it is

fair, 12% indicated it is excellent, while 4% indicated it is poor. The distribution shows that more

than halve of the respondents 57% indicated that the level of water availability in their hostel is good,

20% agreed with the fact that the level is fair, 17% claimed that the level is excellent, while 4%

indicated that the water availability level is poor. Also majority of the respondents 48%, responded

that the level of availability of electricity is excellent, 33% responded it is good 15% responded it is

fair while 3% indicated it is poor. The frequency table shows that 61% of the respondents said the

drainage system in their hostel is good, 17% indicated it is fair, 16% indicated it is excellent, while

4% indicated it is poor. 48% of the respondents indicated that the waste in the hostel they live is been

disposed regularly and very regularly respectively. 16% indicated they it is fairly regular while 2%

claimed it is irregular. it can be observed that 40% and 31% of the respondents indicated that the

parking facilities in their hostel is good and fair r respectively, 23% indicated it is excellent, while

5% indicated it is poor. It can also be observed that 31% and 40% of the respondents indicated that

the road facilities in their hostel is good and fair respectively, 19% indicated it is poor, while 10%

indicated it is excellent. The table also rates the level of comfortability of the respondents in their

various hostels. It can be observed that 61% and 21% of the respondents indicated that the comfort

level in the hostel is good and excellent respectively. 17% indicated it is fair while just 1% indicated

it is poor. It also indicates that more than halve of the respondents about 53% indicated their hostels

are very accessible, 42% indicated they are accessible, while 4% indicated it is poorly accessible.

The distribution table reveals that more than halve of the respondents 60% indicated that the security

level of the hostels is good, 12% indicated it is excellent, 21% indicated it is fair while 1% indicated

it is poor.

19 | P a g e

Table 3: Space Analysis

Space Analysis Status Frequency Percentage (%)

Room Size Excellent 9 11.11111111

Good 47 58.02469136

Average 21 25.92592593

Fair 4 4.938271605

Total 81 100

No in The Room 1-2 63 77.77777778

3-4 18 22.22222222

Total 81 100

Ease of Movement Within The

Room

Excellent 28 34.56790123

Good 35 43.20987654

Fair 14 17.28395062

Poor 4 4.938271605

Total 81 100

Source: Authors Field Work (2013).

According to the distribution table above, 11% of the respondents rated the room size as excellent,

58% claimed it is good, 26% claimed it is average while 5% claimed it is fair. Also 78% of the

respondents stay in rooms that accommodate only one or two persons while 22% stay in rooms that

accommodate three to four people. Majority of the respondents 43%, responded that the ease of

movement within the room they occupy is good, 34% indicated it is excellent, 17% indicated it is fair

while just about 4% of the respondents indicated it is poor. About 25% of the respondents indicated

privacy is what they like about their room , 19% claimed that the room is spacious and 17% indicated

its because of it conveniences while 26% indicated it is due to all the points mentioned above.

20 | P a g e

Table 4: Likes or dislikes of the room

Dislike about Room Too Small 10 12.34567901

Not Well

Ventilated

13 16.04938272

Improper

Maintenance 13 16.04938272

None 45 55.55555556

Total 81 100

Like About Your Room Spacious 15 18.51851852

Privacy 20 24.69135802

Convenient 14 17.28395062

All of The Above 21 25.92592593

None 11 13.58024691

Total 81 100

It can also be viewed from the above table that more than halve of the respondents claimed there is

nothing to be disliked about their room, 16% indicated it non ventilation, and improper maintenance

respectively while just about 12% indicated that the room is small.

21 | P a g e

Table 5: Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction of the residence.

Residential Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Table Status Frequency

Likes About Your

Hostel

Proximity To School

Serene environment

Convenience

Privacy

Security

Constant Electricity

And Water

All of the Above

Total

Dislikes About

Your Hostel

Sharing Facilities

Poor Hygiene Condition

Delay Response to Complaints

Poor Maintenance

Crowd

Noisy environment

All of the Above

None

Total

Source: Authors Field Work (2013).

The above distribution table expressed the students satisfaction with the hostels: It shows that

majority of the respondents 32% indicated that the reason why they like the various hostels they

belong is because of its convenience, 14% claimed it is because of its proximity to the school, 18%

indicated it is because of it privacy, while 10% indicated it is because of all the factors mentioned

22 | P a g e

above. They also expressed what they dissatisfied about their hostels: It shows that about 23% of the

respondents indicated what they dislike about their hostel is poor hygiene condition, 20% indicated

there is nothing to dislike about their hostel, 13% indicated its poor maintenance, and 12% indicated

its delay response to complaints.

23 | P a g e

4.3 Gallery of some of the visual findings

Windows (Fig. 1 – 6)

Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Fig. 5 Fig. 6

Doors (Fig. 7 – 8)

24 | P a g e

Fig. 7 Fig. 8

Bathrooms (Fig. 9 – 12)

Fig. 9 Fig. 10

25 | P a g e

Fig. 11 Fig. 12

Toilets (Fig. 13 – 15)

26 | P a g e

Fig. 15

Roofs (Fig. 16 – 19)

Fig. 16 (no ceiling) Fig. 17

27 | P a g e

Fig. 18 Fig. 19

28 | P a g e

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This is final section of the research work; it summaries the research work and gives appropriate

recommendations write respect to the field survey findings.

5.1 Conclusion.

This paper has critically examined the impact of poor housing condition on the academic performance

of Cape Coast Polytechnic students residing selected private students’ housing in the catchment area.

From the result of the study, it can be concluded that, much problem is being faced by the occupants

(students) in the use of the hostel facilities. The performance of the hostels was below expected

average and not satisfactory.

Post-occupancy is a dynamic model, and changes overtime can cause different effects. From the

information gathered and result obtained, it may be safely inferred that the users of private hostels

are not satisfied and complain it affect their studies. A good level of satisfaction in student hostels is

central to the pursuance of academic excellence. In view of the findings of this study, it will be

worthwhile and complementary that further work is done to evaluate the performance of on-campus

student housing and the residential satisfaction.

5.2 Recommendations.

Clearly analyses show that off-campus students’ housing is has failed in its performance and as such

more should be done to enhance better residential satisfaction and ultimately improve the learning

process of the students. For optimal performance of off-campus student housing, the design,

maintenance and management require clinical intervention. To this end, the following

recommendations are made:

• The issue of quacks, charlatans and dilettantes in the building design profession has to be

tackled headlong towards eliminating sub-standard designs while the approving body is also

restructured to allow appropriate professional to handle appropriate aspects of the approval

process. This will ensure minimum design standards.

• Maintenance Control should be institutionalized in the appropriate government ministry to

ensure adequate maintenance is given to all buildings including students’ housing.

• The institution Estate Managers and Accommodation Committee must ensure operators of all

students’ housing should carry out better services and enforce occupancy and maintenance

standards for such buildings to avoid low standards and unsanitary conditions.

• The institution should to large extent provide on-campus accommodation for more students

as much as possible.

APPENDIX

29 | P a g e

COAST POLYTECHNIC

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FIELD SURVEY

TOPIC: IMPACT OF POOR HOUSING CONDITIONS ON THE ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE OF CAPE COAST POLYTECHNIC STUDENTS

I would be very grateful if you could provide answers to the questions below. All information

given will remain confidential and used only for academic purposes.

Please tick [√] where appropriate in the space(s) provided.

Table 1: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Residents

Please tick [√] correct answer

Socio-Economic Characteristics

Sex Male

Female

Age

15 - 20

21 - 25

26 - 30

Level of Study

100

200

300

Marital status Single

Married

30 | P a g e

Table 2: Facilities Provided for the Residents

Please tick [√] correct answer

Facilities Provided for the Residents

Where do you reside? Private

Rented hostel

Conditions of facility:

Room fixtures and furniture

Excellent

Good

Average

Fair

Poor

Toilet and Bath

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Do You Share Your Toilet Yes

No

The rooms:

Artificial Lightning

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Ventilation

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Availability of:

Water

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Electricity

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

31 | P a g e

Rating levels:

Drainage

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Waste Disposal

Very Regular

Regular

Fairly Regular

Irregular

Parking Facilities

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Road Facilities

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Comfortability

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Ease of Accessibility

Accessible

Very Accessible

Poorly Accessible

Security

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Table 3: Space Analysis

Please tick [√] correct answer

32 | P a g e

Space Analysis

Room Size

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

No. in the Room

1

2

3

4

Ease of Movement Within The Room

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Table 4: Likes or dislikes of the room

Choose the appropriate one, you may choose more than one.

Dislike about Room

Too Small

Not Well Ventilated

Improper

Maintenance

None

Like About Your Room

Spacious

Privacy

Convenient

All of The Above

None

33 | P a g e

Table 5: Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction of the residence.

Please tick [√] the appropriate one, you may tick more than one.

Residential Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Table

Likes

Proximity To School

Serene environment

Convenience

Privacy

Security

Constant Electricity

And Water

All of the Above

None

Dislikes

Sharing Facilities

Poor Hygiene Condition

Delay Response to Complaints

Poor Maintenance

Crowd

Noisy environment

All of the Above

None

34 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Ambrose, P. (1997). Better Housing as Preventative Medicine. Housing Review, 46 (3)

Amole, D. (2005). Coping strategies for living in student residential facilities in Nigeria.

Environment and Behaviour, 37 (2), pp. 201-219.

Araujo, P. d., & Murray, J. (2010). Estimating the effects of dormitory living on student

performance. Economics Bulletin, 30 (1), pp. 866-878

Bekurs, G. (2007). Outstanding student housing in American community colleges: problems and

prospects Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31, pp. 621–636.

Black, D. (2008). Court Rules on Residence Hall Privacy. Student Affairs Leader, 36 (19), 1-2.

Blimling, G. S. (1999). A meta-analysis of the influence of college residence halls on academic

performance. Journal of College Student Development, 40 (5), pp. 551-561.

Brandon, A., Hirt, J. B., & Cameron, T. (2008). Where you live influences who you know:

differences in student interaction based on residence hall design. The Journal of College and

University student housing, 35 (2), pp. 62_79.

Buckley, R. M. & Gurenko, E. N. (1997). Housing and income distribution in Russia: The Zhivago

legacy. The World Bank Research Observer. 19 (1), pp. 21.

Cape Coast Polytechnic Profile. www.c.poly.edu.gh. 12/01/13

Charbonneau, P., Johnson, L. C., & Andrey, J. (2006). Characteristics of University Student

Housing and Implications for Urban Development in Mid-sized cities Canadian Journal of Urban

Research, 15(2), pp. 278-300.

Corganti, P., S., Ansaldi, R. & Filippi, M. (2008). Thermal Comfort in Italian Classrooms under

Free Running Conditions during Mid-Seasons: Assessment Through objective and Subjective

Approaches.

Croome-Clements, D. (2001). Influence of Social Organization and Environmental Factors and

Well-ffice Workplace. In: Proceedings of Clima 2000 World Congress, Naples.

Cross, J. E., Zimmerman, D., & O’Grady, M. A. (2009). Residence Hall Room Type and Alcohol

Use Among College Students Living on Campus. Environment and Behaviour, 41 (4).

Ehlers, V. E. &Steel, E.W. (1938). Municipal and rural sanitation. 6th ed. McGraw-Hill Book

Company. New York. pp. 462–4.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (1998). National policy on education. Lagos: NERDC Press.

Foubert, J. D., Tepper, R., & Morrison, D. R. (1998). Predictors of student satisfaction in

University Residence halls Journal of college and University student housing 27 (1), pp. 41-46.

Friedman D. (2010). Social impact of poor housing. ECOTEC, 1st Floor, 1-3 Dufferin Street,

London EC1Y 8NA, United Kingdom.

35 | P a g e

Han, J. (2004). House,Home and community:good models for graduate student housing.

Massachusetts institute of technology.

Handler, A. B. (2001). Housing. In C. M. Cummings (Ed.). Encyclopedia Americana. 14, pp.482.

Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier Inc.

Harker L. (2006). Chance of a lifetime the impact of bad housing on children’s lives. Scotiabank

House, 6 South Charlotte Street, Edinburgh EH2 4AW.

Hassanain, M. A. (2008). On the performance evaluation of sustainable student housing facilities.

Journal of Facilities Management, 6 (3), pp. 212-225.

Holahan, C. J., & Wilcox, B. L. (1978). residential satisfaction and friendship formation in high and

low rise student housing : an interactional analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (2), pp.

237-241.

Indoor air quality standard. www.cmteknologi.com (20/01/2013)

Lanasa, S. M., Olson, E., & Alleman, N. (2007). The Impact of On-campus Student Growth on

First-year Student Engagement and Success Research in Higher Education, 48 (8).

Najib, N. U. M., Yusof, N. A., & Abidin, N. Z. (2011). Student residential satisfaction in research

universities. Journal of Facilities Management, 9 (3), pp. 200-212.

National Housing Federation, (1999). Housing and Mental Health. London, NHF.

Nicol, F. J. & Humphreys, M. A. (2007). Adaptive Thermal Comfort and Sustainable thermal

Standards for Building. Elsevier. www.sciencedirect.com.

Ormandy, D., and Burridge, R., (1988). Environmental Health Standards in Housing. London,

Sweet and Maxwell.

Page, A., (2002). Poor Housing and Mental Health in the United Kingdom: Changing the Focus for

Intervention. JEHR, Chartered Insitute of Environmental Health. 1 (1).

www.housing_mental_health.html. (12/03/2013)

Paine, D. E. (2007). An Exploration of three residence hall types and the academic and social

integration of first year students. University of South Florida.

Pat-Mbano1, E. C., Alaka1, I. N. & Okeoma, O. I. (2012). Examining the Physio, Psycho and

Socio-Economic Implications of Non- Residential Policy on Imo State University Students.

Canadian Social Science, 8 (2), pp. 170-179. Canada.

Rinn, A. N. (2004). Academic and social effects of living in honors residence halls. Journal of the

National Collegiate Honors Council, 5(2), pp. 67-79.

Roche, C. R. L., Flanigan, M. A., & P. Kenneth Copeland, J. (2010). Student housing: trends,

preferences and needs. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(10), pp. 45-50.

Smith, S.J., (1991). Housing Opportunities for People with Health Needs: An Overview in Smith,

S.J., Knill-Jones, R., McGuckin, A., (Eds.) 1991. Housing for Health.

Stern, L. A., Powers, J., Dhaene, K., Dix, A., & Shegog, S. (2007). Liking, cooperation, and

satisfaction between roommates. Journal of College and University student housing 34 (2).

36 | P a g e

The World Bank (1999). World development indicators. Washington DC: International Bank for

Reconstruction and Development/the World Bank.

Thomsen, J. (2007). Home Experiences in Student Housing: About Temporary Homes and

Institutional Character. Journal of Youth Studies, 10 (5), pp. 577-596.

Thomsen, J. (2008). Student housing – student homes? aspects of student housing satisfaction.

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.

Ubong, B. (2007). Hostel accommodation in tertiary educational Institutions in Nigeria: to be or not

to be. Bassey Ubong School of Business Education Federal College of Education (Tech) Omoku.

Wafi, S. R. S. & Ismail, M. R. (2008). The Relationship between Thermal Performance, Thermal

Comfort and Occupants. A Study of Thermal Indoor Environment in Selected Students

Accommodation in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), 2nd International Conference on Built

Environment in Developing Countries (ICBEDC 2008). Penang, Malaysia.

World Health Organisation (1989). Health Principles of Housing. Geneva, World Health

Organisation.

World Health Organisation (2012). Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-

water. World Health Organisation.